意大利急诊医生在急诊科的程序性镇静:SEED SIMEU登记结果。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Davide Lison, Bartolomeo Lorenzati, Elisabetta Segre, Emanuele Bernardi, Peiman Nazerian, Adriana Gianni, Alice Bruno, Federico Baldassa, Maria Tizzani, Valerio T Stefanone, Matteo Borselli, Luca Dutto, Maria Grazia Veglio, Andrea Landi, Flavia Soardo, Gian A Cibinel
{"title":"意大利急诊医生在急诊科的程序性镇静:SEED SIMEU登记结果。","authors":"Davide Lison, Bartolomeo Lorenzati, Elisabetta Segre, Emanuele Bernardi, Peiman Nazerian, Adriana Gianni, Alice Bruno, Federico Baldassa, Maria Tizzani, Valerio T Stefanone, Matteo Borselli, Luca Dutto, Maria Grazia Veglio, Andrea Landi, Flavia Soardo, Gian A Cibinel","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Effective and safe procedural sedation is pivotal for the quality of care in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety procedural sedation performed by emergency physicians in the ED setting in Italy.</p><p><strong>Design/setting and participants/intervention: </strong>Following a specific training of the staff and with the adoption of a standardized protocol, a registry of procedural sedations performed on adult patients in 10 Italian EDs was compiled from 2019 to 2022; the following basic data were recorded: demographic and clinical information, procedure's indication, administered drugs, predefined, and actual sedation level.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and analysis: </strong>Effectiveness was evaluated considering three parameters: successful completion of the procedure, absence of procedural pain, and no memory of the procedure; adverse events were classified according to the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia criteria and evaluated taking into account clinical and procedural variables.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>The study included 1349 patients (median age 68 years, male 64%). Sedation was performed for electrical cardioversion (66.3%), orthopedic procedures (23.2%), or other procedures (10.5%). Propofol (67%) and midazolam (24.2%) were the two most frequently used sedatives and 70.6% of the patients achieved a deep level of sedation.Procedural failure occurred in 4.6% of cases, with no significant differences between procedure types or drugs used. Recall of the procedure and procedural related pain were reported by 2.9% and 2.6% of patients, respectively, and were more frequently related to orthopedic procedures, midazolam use - if compared with propofol, and lower levels of sedation.A total of 135 adverse events were observed, with an overall incidence of 10%: 38 minimal adverse events (2.8%), 38 minor adverse events (2.8%), and 59 moderate adverse events (4.4%). There were no adverse events requiring unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care, and no sentinel adverse events were observed. All adverse events were resolved with simple and noninvasive treatments. The incidence of adverse events was greater with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, intermediate/difficult airway, and deeper sedation levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Procedural sedation performed in Italian EDs by emergency physicians, with propofol as main sedative, was effective and safe, and has comparable adverse event rates with previous international studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Italian emergency physicians: results of the SEED SIMEU registry.\",\"authors\":\"Davide Lison, Bartolomeo Lorenzati, Elisabetta Segre, Emanuele Bernardi, Peiman Nazerian, Adriana Gianni, Alice Bruno, Federico Baldassa, Maria Tizzani, Valerio T Stefanone, Matteo Borselli, Luca Dutto, Maria Grazia Veglio, Andrea Landi, Flavia Soardo, Gian A Cibinel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Effective and safe procedural sedation is pivotal for the quality of care in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety procedural sedation performed by emergency physicians in the ED setting in Italy.</p><p><strong>Design/setting and participants/intervention: </strong>Following a specific training of the staff and with the adoption of a standardized protocol, a registry of procedural sedations performed on adult patients in 10 Italian EDs was compiled from 2019 to 2022; the following basic data were recorded: demographic and clinical information, procedure's indication, administered drugs, predefined, and actual sedation level.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and analysis: </strong>Effectiveness was evaluated considering three parameters: successful completion of the procedure, absence of procedural pain, and no memory of the procedure; adverse events were classified according to the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia criteria and evaluated taking into account clinical and procedural variables.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>The study included 1349 patients (median age 68 years, male 64%). Sedation was performed for electrical cardioversion (66.3%), orthopedic procedures (23.2%), or other procedures (10.5%). Propofol (67%) and midazolam (24.2%) were the two most frequently used sedatives and 70.6% of the patients achieved a deep level of sedation.Procedural failure occurred in 4.6% of cases, with no significant differences between procedure types or drugs used. Recall of the procedure and procedural related pain were reported by 2.9% and 2.6% of patients, respectively, and were more frequently related to orthopedic procedures, midazolam use - if compared with propofol, and lower levels of sedation.A total of 135 adverse events were observed, with an overall incidence of 10%: 38 minimal adverse events (2.8%), 38 minor adverse events (2.8%), and 59 moderate adverse events (4.4%). There were no adverse events requiring unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care, and no sentinel adverse events were observed. All adverse events were resolved with simple and noninvasive treatments. The incidence of adverse events was greater with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, intermediate/difficult airway, and deeper sedation levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Procedural sedation performed in Italian EDs by emergency physicians, with propofol as main sedative, was effective and safe, and has comparable adverse event rates with previous international studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和重要性:有效和安全的程序性镇静对急诊科(ED)护理质量至关重要。目的:本研究的目的是评估意大利急诊科急诊医师实施程序性镇静的可行性、有效性和安全性。设计/设置和参与者/干预:在对工作人员进行专门培训并采用标准化方案后,从2019年到2022年,编制了10个意大利急诊科对成年患者进行的程序性镇静登记;记录以下基本数据:人口学和临床信息、手术适应证、给药药物、预定义镇静水平和实际镇静水平。结果测量和分析:疗效评估考虑三个参数:手术成功完成,无手术疼痛,无手术记忆;根据世界静脉麻醉学会的标准对不良事件进行分类,并考虑临床和程序变量进行评估。主要结果:纳入1349例患者(中位年龄68岁,男性64%)。在电复律(66.3%)、矫形手术(23.2%)或其他手术(10.5%)中使用镇静。丙泊酚(67%)和咪达唑仑(24.2%)是两种最常用的镇静剂,70.6%的患者达到深度镇静。手术失败发生率为4.6%,手术类型和所用药物之间无显著差异。分别有2.9%和2.6%的患者报告了手术和手术相关疼痛的回忆,并且与骨科手术、咪达唑仑的使用(与异丙酚相比)和较低水平的镇静有关。共观察到135例不良事件,总发生率为10%:38例轻微不良事件(2.8%),38例轻微不良事件(2.8%),59例中度不良事件(4.4%)。没有不良事件需要意外住院或升级护理,也没有观察到前哨不良事件。所有不良事件均通过简单无创治疗得到解决。不良事件的发生率随着美国麻醉医师协会级别的升高、中级/困难气道和较深的镇静水平而增加。结论:意大利急诊科急诊医师以异丙酚为主的程序性镇静有效且安全,其不良事件发生率与之前的国际研究相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Italian emergency physicians: results of the SEED SIMEU registry.

Background and importance: Effective and safe procedural sedation is pivotal for the quality of care in the emergency department (ED).

Objectives: The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety procedural sedation performed by emergency physicians in the ED setting in Italy.

Design/setting and participants/intervention: Following a specific training of the staff and with the adoption of a standardized protocol, a registry of procedural sedations performed on adult patients in 10 Italian EDs was compiled from 2019 to 2022; the following basic data were recorded: demographic and clinical information, procedure's indication, administered drugs, predefined, and actual sedation level.

Outcome measures and analysis: Effectiveness was evaluated considering three parameters: successful completion of the procedure, absence of procedural pain, and no memory of the procedure; adverse events were classified according to the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia criteria and evaluated taking into account clinical and procedural variables.

Main results: The study included 1349 patients (median age 68 years, male 64%). Sedation was performed for electrical cardioversion (66.3%), orthopedic procedures (23.2%), or other procedures (10.5%). Propofol (67%) and midazolam (24.2%) were the two most frequently used sedatives and 70.6% of the patients achieved a deep level of sedation.Procedural failure occurred in 4.6% of cases, with no significant differences between procedure types or drugs used. Recall of the procedure and procedural related pain were reported by 2.9% and 2.6% of patients, respectively, and were more frequently related to orthopedic procedures, midazolam use - if compared with propofol, and lower levels of sedation.A total of 135 adverse events were observed, with an overall incidence of 10%: 38 minimal adverse events (2.8%), 38 minor adverse events (2.8%), and 59 moderate adverse events (4.4%). There were no adverse events requiring unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care, and no sentinel adverse events were observed. All adverse events were resolved with simple and noninvasive treatments. The incidence of adverse events was greater with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, intermediate/difficult airway, and deeper sedation levels.

Conclusion: Procedural sedation performed in Italian EDs by emergency physicians, with propofol as main sedative, was effective and safe, and has comparable adverse event rates with previous international studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信